The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-03-12
THE DBMoCRAT11 REVOLUTION.


Green Smith, the usurper, gets another
knock-down. The Supreme Court has unani-
mously overruled his petition for rehearing
in the matter of his contest for the Lieuten-
ant-governorship. In his individual opinion,
Justice Niblack restates the former position
of majority Of the judges, that the courts
have no jurisdiction of the controversy and
that it belonged entirely and exclusively to
the General Assembly to determine. This is
unquestionably the correct view, the one
which the common sense Of the people will
law and the right of the case. In declining
to grant rehearing the court virtually reas-
serts every position and argument in the de-
cision and opinions of its members declining
to take jurisdiction Of the case. TWAS then
held in the clearest and strongest language
possible for judges to use, that con-
test concerning the validity of an election for
| Lieutenant-governor was contest of the
| election, and, as such, was for the General
| Assembly to settle in the way provided by the
| Constitution and laws. AS time passes, and
| the excitement of the hour subsidies, men will
wonder how any other view could ever have
been taken. 1t could not have been, except
by men bent On revolution. The Constitu-
ton and the laws provide way for the set
Element of all contested questions growing
out Of an election for Lieutenant-governor
and they cannot be settled any other way.
There were nearly 10000 votes cast for
Lieutenant governor in November, 1886, un-
der the orderly processes of law. What Was
| to be done with those votes? Should some
judge OF inspector of elections throw the ballots
of his precinct into the street because, in his
opinion, it was not legal election? Should
some county clerk assume to decide the same
way and refuse to transmit the certified votes
officer take the responsibility Of refusing to
deliver the returns to the Speaker Or, fin
ally, should the Speaker dare to say '"This cleo
ton was irregular and illegal, and l will not
open and publish the votes2" Suppose John
G. Nelson had received popular majority OF
1919, and Speaker Sayre had taken it upon
himself to decide that the election was invalid
and had refused to open and publish the re-
turns as required by the Constitution, what
would the Democrats have thought? Yet be
had just as much right to do this as Green
Smith, or the majority of the Senate had tt
assume to decide the question. There was
but one way to make the contest. That way is
pointed out by the Constitution and laws. The
Democrats chose the way of revolutionists
and defantly refused to permit the contest t.
be settled in constitutional way The Hous
had as much right to decide the questio,
alone as the Senate had, and it had the addi
tional merit of trying to give effect to popu
lar election while the Senate was trying tt
nullify it. The majority of the judges o
the Supreme Court adhere firmly to thei
original position, that the courts could no
and should not take jurisdiction of contes
which, under the Constitution, clearly be
longed to the General Assembly to decide
not to the Senate nor to the House, but t
the General Assembly. Colonel Robertson
held his certificate from the people, and
Green Smith wanted to contest it he shoul
have done so in the legal and constitutions
way. Failing to do this, he and his hacker
became revolutionists.
| 9nnz&1eaxzszuEz@-